Skip Navigation



Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on June 28, 2007
Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/dem188
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
22/9/2437    most recent
dem188v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Varma, R.
Right arrow Articles by Gupta, J. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Varma, R.
Right arrow Articles by Gupta, J. K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Predicting negligence in female sterilization failure using time interval to sterilization failure: analysis of 131 cases

Rajesh Varma1 and Janesh K. Gupta

Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2nd Floor, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham B15 2TG, UK

1 Correspondence address. Tel: +44 121 607 4751; Fax: +44 121 607 4795; E-mail: r.varma{at}bham.ac.uk

BACKGROUND: Sterilization failure due to ‘tubal non-occlusion’ or ‘wrong structure sterilization’ is considered negligent, whereas ‘spontaneous tubal recanalization’ or ‘fistula formation’ is considered non-negligent. We examined whether interval to pregnancy failure was predictive of a negligent rather non-negligent failure mechanism. We aim to test this hypothesis in a selected population series of known mechanisms of sterilization failure and their time interval to failure.

METHODS: Analyses of 131 failed sterilizations pooled from UK (NHS Litigation Authority, Medical Protection Society and our hospital), Australia and a qualitative systematic review.

RESULTS: We identified 88 negligent and 43 non-negligent sterilization failures. Filshie and ring methods failed earlier than diathermy and Pomeroy methods. Sterilization failure occurred significantly earlier in negligent than non-negligent failure mechanisms [median failure intervals 7.0 versus 12.0 months; Hazard ratio (2.35 95% CI 1.31–4.21)]. Knowing that sterilization failure occurred early, increased the probability that the failure mechanism was likely to be negligent rather than non-negligent.

CONCLUSIONS: A short interval to failure is suggestive of a negligent failure mechanism. There is less certainty in the predictive value of longer time intervals on the mechanism of failure due to a paucity of cases. A national register of failed sterilizations that have been systematically investigated is needed to improve our understanding of negligent and non-negligent failure mechanisms.

Key words: sterilization/tubal/treatment failure/survival analysis/Bayes theorem

Submitted on June 6, 2007; resubmitted on April 24, 2007; accepted on May 24, 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.